Internet Engineering Task Force S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft Kaloom
Intended status: Best Current Practice May 14, 2018
Expires: November 15, 2018
High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06
Abstract
This document describes a meeting location policy for the IETF and
the various stakeholders for realizing such a policy.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 15, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Krishnan Expires November 15, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Policy May 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The 1-1-1-* meeting policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Implementation of the policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Re-evaluation and changes to this policy . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group
mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high
bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues. The IETF
currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy [IETFMEET] where
the goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America,
Europe, and Asia. These are the locations most of the IETF
participants have come from in the recent past. This meeting
rotation is mainly aimed at distributing the travel effort for the
existing IETF participants who physically attend meetings and for
distributing the timezone difficulty for those who participate
remotely. This policy has neither been defined precisely nor
documented in an IETF consensus document until now. This document is
meant to serve as a consensus-backed statement of this policy
published as a BCP.
2. The 1-1-1-* meeting policy
Given that the majority of the current participants come from North
America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that our
meetings should primarily be in those regions. i.e., the meeting
policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings should
rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia. Please note that the
boundaries between those regions has been purposefully left
undefined. It is important to note that such rotation and any
effects to distributing travel pain should be considered from a long-
term perspective. While a potential cycle in an IETF year may be a
meeting in North America in March, a meeting in Europe in July, and a
meeting in Asia on November, the 1-1-1 policy does not imply such a
cycle, as long as the distribution to these regions over multiple
years is roughly equal. There are many reasons why meetings might be
distributed differently in a given year. Meeting locations in
subsequent years should seek to re-balance the distribution if
possible.
Krishnan Expires November 15, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Policy May 2018
BACKGROUND NOTE: The IETF recognizes that we have not achieved a
1-1-1 distribution over the past few years. At the time of writing,
going back 6 years the meeting locations resemble more the previous
3-2-1 policy (9 Americas, 6 Europe and 3 Asia). This is attributable
to two reasons:
o We plan meetings 3 years ahead (meaning meetings for 3 of the 6
years had already been planned when the new policy was set)
o There were some logistical issues (venue availability, cost etc.).
While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
participants, we need to recognize that due to the dynamic and
evolving nature of participation, there may be significant changes to
the regions that provide a major share of participants in the future.
The 1-1-1-* meeting policy is a slightly modified version of the
aforementioned 1-1-1 meeting policy that allows for additional
flexibility in the form of an exploratory meeting denoted as a "*".
This exploratory meeting can be used to experiment with exceptional
meetings without extensively impacting the regular meetings. e.g.
these exploratory meetings can include meetings in other geographical
regions, virtual meetings and additional meetings past the three
regular meetings in a calendar year.
The exploratory meeting proposals will be initiated based on
community consent. After such a proposal is initiated the IESG will
make a decision in consultation with the Internet Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) to ensure that the proposal can be
realistically implemented. The final decision will be communicated
back to the community to ensure that there is adequate opportunity to
comment.
NOTE: There have not been a large number of such exploratory meetings
under the current 1-1-1-* policy (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and
IETF47 in Adelaide being the exceptional instances). IETF27
(Amsterdam) and IETF54(Yokohama) were earlier examples of exploratory
meetings that pioneered Europe and Asia as regular IETF destinations.
The timing and frequency of future exploratory meetings will be based
on IETF consensus as determined by the IETF chair.
3. Implementation of the policy
IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the
aspiration of the IETF community. Similarly, any exploratory meeting
decisions will also be communicated to the IASA to be implemented.
The actual selection of the venue would be performed by the IASA
following the process described in
[I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process].
Krishnan Expires November 15, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Policy May 2018
As mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process], the
IASA will also be responsible
o to assist the community in the development of detailed meeting
criteria that are feasible and implementable, and
o to provide sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning
planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and
acted upon.
Given that the geographical location of the venue has a significant
influence on the venue selection process, it needs to be considered
at the same level as the other Important Criteria specified in
Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]
(including potentially trading off the geographical region to meet
other criteria, and notifying the community if the geographical
region requirement cannot be met)
4. Re-evaluation and changes to this policy
Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it
is expected that this policy needs to be periodically evaluated and
revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met. The
criteria that are to be met need to be agreed upon by the community
prior to initiating a revision of this document (e.g. try to mirror
draft author distribution over the preceding five years).
5. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alia Atlas, Fred Baker,
Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins,
Stephen Farrell, Tobias Gondrom, Eric Gray, Bob Hinden, Ole Jacobsen,
Olaf Kolkman, Eliot Lear, Andrew Malis, Yoav Nir, Ray Pelletier,
Melinda Shore, John Klensin, Charles Eckel, Russ Housley, Andrew
Sullivan, Eric Rescorla, Richard Barnes, Cullen Jennings, Ted Lemon,
Lou Berger, John Levine, Adam Roach, Mark Nottingham, Tom Petch,
Randy Bush, Roni Even, Julien Meuric and Lloyd Wood for their ideas
and comments to improve this document.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
.
Krishnan Expires November 15, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Policy May 2018
6.2. Informative References
[CONT-DIST]
IETF, "Number of attendees per continent across meetings",
2016,
.
[I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]
Lear, E., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process",
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15 (work
in progress), May 2018.
[IETFMEET]
IAOC Plenary Presentation, "IETF 1-1-1 Meeting Policy",
2010, .
Author's Address
Suresh Krishnan
Kaloom
Email: suresh@kaloom.com
Krishnan Expires November 15, 2018 [Page 5]